Thailand Among 'top Four Countries' For Japanese Investors

[BAF]

What I have found - is that western medicine does not treat the cause - but only the symptoms, whereas asian medicine treats the root cause.

I was going to reply to your other post but I've just realized whom am I dealing with...

Just a quick note: "The difference was, that christianity was used as a way for nations to sanction their attrocious acts of genocide, slavery, and wealth transfer. Yes, Islam aslo did this, but not to the degree the western nations did. If they did anything, it was really in reaction to the church and their vassal states in their pogroms against people of other beliefs, and a way for the church to have a far reaching domain really for the subjugation of all people under their system. The chinese, on the other hand unified the area of current china and really were a trading nation with the islamic nations and really living more or less at peace with other peoples. They did not try to conquer and invade like the western nations have and create colonies to be raped and pillaged for their wealth." this is the kind of totally groundless and completely historically false PC inspired crap which is leading to the end of the Western supremacy.

Then, the real fun will begin and you will have real life experiences (the only kinds capable of waking up blind and history-ignorant PC daydreamers like you) of how "Islam don't do it to the degree the Western nations do" and how the Chinese "live at peace with other peoples"...

[shochu]

BAF,

The romans only occupied the equivalent of about half of europe in total territory.

[shochu]

BAF,

History speaks for itself.

Yes, the mongols went on a spree and conquered the most land ever in Eurasia.

Why didn't the chinese when they could have? Why instead did they send the most advanced ships to distant ports for trade instead?

Lets not discuss the immediate territory concerns on their borders - but beyond their immediate territory.

Edited April 27, 2007 by shochu

[shochu]

And how about trying to relate it to how this all affects LOS in terms of investment.

[ovenman]

The romans only occupied the equivalent of about half of europe in total territory.

Where did Thailand rank in terms of Roman direct foreign investment? Was it amongst their top four countries?

[Prakanong]

The romans only occupied the equivalent of about half of europe in total territory.

Where did Thailand rank in terms of Roman direct foreign investment? Was it amongst their top four countries?

LOL

The west is that bad where do they all run to for education?

Then its back to being a factory foreman watching over assembly lines with their newly minted PHd's for a paper boys salary!

[shochu]

Where did Thailand rank in terms of Roman direct foreign investment? Was it amongst their top four countries?

The thais new the roman empire was doomed so ...

[shochu]

Then its back to being a factory foreman watching over assembly lines with their newly minted PHd's for a paper boys salary!

Ironically enough - sooner than you think!

[sriracha john]

BAF,

The romans only occupied the equivalent of about half of europe in total territory.

Didn't they then sell it to Japanese investors, who outsourced a great deal of the work to Thailand?

[BAF]

BAF,

The romans only occupied the equivalent of about half of europe in total territory.

And I promise that's the last from me on this thread

As shochu says: "History speaks for itself" and that's just about the only thing we can agree on.

The real key is, of course, knowing the History...

That may also be the link to the topic: knowing Thai history (which isn't even taught at their schools apart those fairy tales being passed for it) gives you the tools to interpret the current situation, to understand the issues at play here and to imagine where LOS is heading...

[Furbie]

And on the subject of medicine, that someone brought up,

What I have found - is that western medicine does not treat the cause - but only the symptoms, whereas asian medicine treats the root cause. I have also found the whole western (especially the american) medicine is a large industry made for plucking the money from our pockets. Start with the way the U.S. flouridates their drinking water - a chemical compound that was used during the war to pacify prisoners - and they tell us this is good for our teeth and bones. Over- flouridated people's bones crack and disintegrate. The whole industry along with the FDA, WHO, and many of these other organizations are really trying to , or should I say letting us, get sick so we will have to be treated. We are like the cattle raised on farms to be milked for profit. AND they perform unnecessary operations to maximize profit which will make us feel better now - but shortens our life in the long run and takes a nice chunk out of our savings.

In the U.S., the richest nation, among anyone who has coverage, if a family member gets sick, with a treatment not covered, the family will go bankrupt. Can't imagine what happens to those not covered - a slow death for the tens of millions without health care. The U.S. is ranked (i think 30th) behind even Columbia. In LOS, lets not forget still a developing nation, everyone can get medical attention for 30 baht. And they have a pretty ###### good medical system in place. Got to love this.

Sure the U.S. has some amazing technolgy in this area - but is it really necessary. There is new research coming out now saying that cancer is a product of our PH levels being off and other conditions related to our environment (read - processed foods and chemicals) and that all the cancer treatments being used by western hospitals is really bunk.

And you have to love LOS for telling the Phama giants to shove it and going ahead with cheap generic drugs.

All the food (in the U.S.) is irradiated so that all the important components are rendered useless. They tell us it is for our protection. It helps to think this way when we read of contaminated food all the time in the papers.

There was a study i read where someone had two plants - one which he used bottled water to water plant 1 - and, two where he used tap water microwaved to water plant 2. Conclusion, the latter (plant 2) plant died after a short time. I don;t own a microwave - maybe someone would like to try this experiment.

LOS has fresh fruit, and fresh food using fresh vegetables and the greatest source of vitamin D (the sun) and plenty of it. A strong immune system is the only way to a healthy life. Whenever I go to LOS I leave feeling great and extremely healthy.

Ya, I know there's polution - but hey we can;t win them all.

I have not been to a doctor in years, not even a cold.

I only eat fresh food, no processed foods, and fruits every morning

AND one day when I get sick I will give asian medicine a try! The people arond me all say it's great!

HOW does this all relate to the topic - it's all about the conditions that make LOS a great investment!

Ahhh shochu, you always seemed very good at running to the internet and getting a few facts to support your cause (though when someone counters this you find a reason to disagree with their facts and change the underlying basis) – where are your facts in these examples? I must admit, I am disappointed in your efforts in this recent post. There was a study I read somewhere…blah, blah, blah, who wrote it? There were studies from cigarette makers saying cigarettes where healthy – if you are going to cite a study, which you did not even do, at least make sure it is in a peer reviewed journal.

I believe even HRH the King even went to the US for his heart operation, which just goes to show you. When/if you have children, will you risk those pesky immunizations for your kids, or trust to your "Asian medicines – or maybe Islamic medicines" to treat the root cause of polio? If your mother had cancer, would you want her to go for treatment with western medicines, or try something else? If your father had liver failure, what would you recommend - ginko?

While I agree with your comment about medical coverage/insurance in the US –I fail to see the relevance to invention and medical advances.

As for food, again, I still fail to see what your recent comments about food, etc. has to do with the comment about medicine or invention. However, I will say I never had food poisoning before moving to Thailand, nor did I need to drink bottled water.

This post has gotten so ridiculously off topic, I can assure you, this is my last post about it – my response was only because I posted about medicine. You and BAF have at it with your argument over what dead civilization had more of an impact on today's world….personally the British Empire impressed me more - 1/4 of the world under Britannia. The Romans conquered for security, the Mongols for plunder, the Arabs to spread religion, but the British did it to go on holiday and not have to learn the local language - go UK!

[shochu]

Sorry FURBIE,

I have not gone to the internet for these things. They are a product of things i have learned over the course of my life.

Who said that western medicine was not advanced - just misguided in their aim for profits.

British Empire impressed me more - 1/4 of the world under Britannia. The Romans conquered for security, the Mongols for plunder, the Arabs to spread religion, but the British did it to go on holiday and not have to learn the local language - go UK!

I'm sure the Indians agree with you there!!

Edited April 27, 2007 by shochu

[pampal]

Does it matter if it's of Worldwide Relevance, you claimed in your earlier post that it was  only a center of Islamice Learning, and you are wrong because it's also a university.

I wasn't clear enough, probably.

I didn't write that it's ONLY a center for Islamic studies. I did write that "you are not seeing foreign students flocking there in droves to learm about economics, social sciences, politics, engineering, maths etc on a world level"

I also added "Are you telling us that, worldwide, as many people know, value and wish to send their kids to Al-Azhar as they know, value and wish to send their kids to Oxford and Harvard..?" which implied that more than Islamic studies were offered in Al-Azhar otherwide they couldn't be an alternative to Oxford and Harvard.

So, at the end of the day, you are confirming that they are nowadays just an unknown university (apart to Islamic students of Islamic matters) with no relevance on the world scene (that was my point).

How many in the West, in Asia and in Africa know of and aspire to go to Al-Azhar? How many in the West, in Asia, in Africa and in the Middle East know of and aspire to go to Oxford and Harvard?

Sorry but wrong again, There are thousands of students who wish to attend and are indeed attending Al-Azhar university. It might not compare favorably with Oxford and Harvard, but 2000 years ago Oxford and Harvard did not exist, so it was the premier place of learning at it's inception and for the next millenia.

 Domestication of plants and animals is what allowed humanity to grow from small villages into big cities and the codification of laws(Hammurabi's Code), which allowed Empires to grow.Why don't you point out to us what laws existed in Europe 2500 years ago.you claimed that nothing of value came from the Middle East and again you are wrong, and no evolution and the ability to domesticate animals and plants are not the same thing. So again your analogy is wrong.

You can't read or again I wasn't clear enough.

Let's see if you get it: "when the first biped hominids were walking in Africa, what did the Middle East have that can match that"?

You must have a reading disability, Evolution is unrelated to human achievements.

Wow you are really on a roll, the oldest pyramids date from 4500 years ago, the buildings you mention came 1500 years later.  The buildings in Crete and the Parthenon and the Roman buildings put together don't come anywhere near the engineering and difficulty of building the pyramids. The buildings you mention are miniscule compared to the engineering done in the middle east and africa at the time.

I wrote "...OLDER than those piramids..." Those = the piramids in Iran you just mentioned.

It seems you really can't read.

Regarding the engineering and difficulty of building the pyramids and the fact that "the buildings I mention are miniscule compared to the engineering done in the middle east and africa at the time" you have clearly no clue of the dimensions of the piramids and, for example, the Greek Partenone and the Roman Colosseo: the biggest piramid (the piramid of Cheope) has a square base with a side of 230 m and a height of 147 m. All the other piramids are smaller than this and most are MUCH smaller than this.

The Colosseo is an amphitheater of 188 m x 156 m x 56 m and could seat 50000 spectators and I don't think you have the competence to judge the engineering complexity of the theaters, amphitheaters, bridges, aqueducts, circuses, basilicas, thermae, temples, roads and cities the Romans were building around the world 2000 years ago (and many of which still stand today)...

The pyramids are indeed a mightier feat, if only for the volume of material used, and the distance of the quarries from which the building blocks came. The buildings you mention are essentially empty on the inside, whereas the pyramids are solid buildings. The building blocks of the Pyramids are Herculean in comparison to th

 rocks 

used in any Roman building, not to mention they are 1500 years older than the oldest Roman and Greek buildings.

Also Persians built the largest network of roads in the world much before the Romans did. Also the persians invented the first postal system, stretching from India to Egypt running along the roads they created. The Romans came much later.

There is only one coliseum whereas there are hundreds of pyrmaids, so again you are wrong, the Roman achievements pale in comparison to ancient Egypt.

Qanats  transport water from the mountains to the deserts, and the longest ones are over 500 kms long. And if they use them even today, that tells you how well they are built and is only a testament to their longetivity . That's good engineering in my book. How many Roman aquaducts are still serving today, not many-if any at all, they were not covered like qanats, so they are prone to seepage,evaporation and pollution, not good engineering, is it?

Roman aqueducts are not being used today because most parts of the ex-Roman Empire are today 1st world developed countries with modern, state of the art (we are in the year 2007) facilities...

But many still stand today and can be admired all around the world as artistic works (look at the ones in Tunisia and Turkey and Israel).

And, the vast majority of Roman aqueducts are closed and/or closed and underground (they built aqueducts also in Africa and in the Middle East), you have clearly no idea how complex and how different they are from Persian qanats.

Rome alone was served by a network of about 500 kms of aqueducts which provided fresh water and drained the waste of a population of 1 million people...

Should I post a picture of the Iranian system of holes in the ground and of the Roman engineering works which resemble today's aqueducts (but are artistically much superior)..?

Another good one

If the qanats work, what reason is there to replace them. Only one Iran's qanats' is 500 km, there are thousands of kilometers of qanats which have lasted thousands of years. That is called engineering, not your examples which fell into disrepair a millenia ago. The majority of Roman aquaducts were not covered and that is why the failed so early, not to mention becoming habitats for many animals whose fecal matter polluted the water.

The Roman Empire was large, and all they wanted to partition is a 120 km part. You say Europe's dimensions aren't Chinas'.  But the truth is that the Roman Empire was bigger than just a part of Europe, it included parts of Africa and Asia Minor. So the Roman Empire was nearly as large as China. Again you are wrong.

In fact it was probably bigger, it spanned over 3 continents but it was not what I meant, of course.

It didn't consisted of a single "chunk" of land mass like China so the Romans had no need nor possibility to phisically mark the endless boarders of their vast empire especially since the Great Wall was a defensive structure (like the Vallo of Antonino and Vallo of Adriano, hence the comparison) while the Roman Empire had an expansive and trading drive.

Good excuse , try their were incapable of such feats

This one is easy, the world is cyclical just like the weather. Poles change, the seas rise and fall, it's all cycle. What goes around comes around, Ask yourself when has the world been static?

Never and that's what happens with power, The Sumerians, The Persians, The Romans, The Greeks, The Arabs, The Ottomans, The British Empire. It's all a cycle, maybe it will be the Indians or Chinese next, who knows, but the truth is that everything changes with time.

Every change has had its reason, pampal, jus like Poles shifts and tides. Besides, cyclic means that they take turns at being in power and we will again have "The Sumerians, The Persians, The Romans, The Greeks, The Arabs, The Ottomans and The British Empire" and I don't think so...

What you think is irrelevant, History has a way of repeating, or maybe you don't know much about that. Try reading some history books and maybe you will be able to recognize the patterns.

Again, Jesus spoke Aramaic(middle eastern language), not Latin, that tells you his heritage and it wasn't Roman. Christianity comes from an area that was a province of the Romans, but before it had been a province of the Persians, and before that, the Babylonians and before that the Egyptians and before that the Phoenicians. And btw, the Romans were quick to pull him on a cross, so they weren't exactly supportive of Christianity, in fact they became Christians 400 years later, after having killed and fed many Christians to the lions.

Jesus was a Roman "citizen" born in a province of the Roman Empire whose "legal" language was, like everywhere else in the empire, the Latin. He didn't even ever question his citizenship nor tried to put himself over such issues: "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar".

And most importantly, he himself told (ever read the Vangels?) his most important disciple, Pietro (the one who has "the keys of Paradise"), to go to the capital of the empire, Roma, and "found there His church".

Ever wondered why the Vatican is in Italy?

Funny you should talk about the vatican, it was built on Mitra's temple(Iranian Goddess), that's what the Romans worshipped  at the time, an Iranian Goddess named Mitra.

Anyway the bible was compiled by orders of Constantinople's ruler, and that would be modern day Istanbul-Turkey, again in Asia Minor.

(nothing to be proud of anyway... )

Edited April 27, 2007 by pampal

[BAF]

Sorry but wrong again, There are thousands of students who wish to attend and are indeed attending Al-Azhar university. It might not compare favorably with Oxford and Harvard, but 2000 years ago Oxford and Harvard did not exist, so it was the premier place of learning at it's inception and for the next millenia.

The abysmal ignorance so shamelessly displayed from people who pose as experts of anything on a public forum with no knowledge on whom they might be speaking to and without not even the effort of a quick internet search on the crap they are about to post (which only Allah knows where was taken from) beggar belief...

I know I have promised not to post anymore on this thread but I wish this to be a reminder of how carefully people and their mostly uninfoirmed opinions are to be taken on these anonymous forums...

Pampal, 2000 years ago Oxford and Harvard did not exist, Al-Azhar did not exist and Cairo (the Egyptian city where Al-Azhar is) did not exist.

The "premier places of learning", as you say, where the damned Roman schools 'cause it was all there was, and the part of Egypt where Al-Azhar will be built 1000 years later was yet another Roman province.

Cairo was built around the year 639 as an Arab encampment using a pre-existing Roman fort (yes, always those damned Romans!) and Al-Azhar "university" was built around the year 988 as an annex of the Al-Azhar mosque (built by a Sicilian warlord). The title of the oldest "university" does not refer to an Arab "invention" of the concept of university but the fact that Al-Azhar is the oldest or the second oldest (after the university of Al Karaouine in Fez, Morocco) one amongst those in operation today. They both started as Madrasahs (schools of Islamic theology) and that explains it all...

Still today, Al-Azhar does not admit students who are not practicing Islam. And that's how they embody the true international, bondless and boarderless spirit of the higher teaching which is the essence of the idea of university...

Now, to clear this garbage about who and when "started a tradition that is the foundation of inquiry of most of the leading systems of higher learning" the very idea and concept and the very definition of university come from THE ROMANS, university is none other than the short for the Roman schools universitas magistrorum et scholarium and they developed and formalized an even earlier Greek concept of "communities of students and masters".

Now, about the FORMAL institutions of universities as we know them today, they developed in Europe around the 1100-1200 (so 100-200 years later than Al-Azhar if we want to consider Madrasahs as proper universities but then again under the same definition we would have had them MUCH earlier than Al-Azhar...).

In Italy (by Western standards and definition of "University", the oldest in the world is the "Alma mater studiorum", the Bologna University, 1088), France, Germany, England, Scotland, Poland and Bohemia.

In academic circles there were no language barriers because the language of the scholars was still the Latin and the lessons were entirely in Latin (in Italy, France, Germany, England, Scotland, Poland and Bohemia).

So each university developed its own specialization (for example, Bologna in Jurisprudence, Salerno -in Italy- in Medicine, Paris in Theology and Philosophy, Montpellier in Medicine, Oxford in Sperimental Sciences etc).

If we were to consider Madrasahs-like istitutions of higher teachings as proper contemporary universities we in Europe had those hundreds of years before Al-Azhar and they were the medieval universities of the Roman Catholic Church, the cathedral schools and the Studia Generali and they actually put the accent on the normal studies instead of the religious ones much more than in the Madrasahs and proof of this is that most of them transformed themselves in "normal" and ordinary universities (just think of the University of Paris, once a cathedral school) while once Madrasahs like Al-Azhar are today open only to Muslims...

I am stopping here, pampal, since you are as ignorant about universities as you are about anything else you have written about in your post and I don't wont to waste any more of my precious time educating someone who does not even bother to google Al-Azhar before so boldly proclaiming that "2000 years ago Oxford and Harvard did not exist, so it was the premier place of learning at it's inception and for the next millenia"......

Pampal, we have had, have today and will have in the future much to learn from other cultures but they have had, have today and will have MUCH MUCH more to learn from us...

History and the contemporary world show us this, take off the PC rose colored glasses, open your eyes and you will (maybe) see it.

Edited April 28, 2007 by BAF

[JR Texas]

Sorry but wrong again, There are thousands of students who wish to attend and are indeed attending Al-Azhar university. It might not compare favorably with Oxford and Harvard, but 2000 years ago Oxford and Harvard did not exist, so it was the premier place of learning at it's inception and for the next millenia.

The abysmal ignorance so shamelessly displayed from people who pose as experts of anything on a public forum with no knowledge on whom they might be speaking to and without not even the effort of a quick internet search on the crap they are about to post (which only Allah knows where was taken from) beggar belief...

I know I have promised not to post anymore on this thread but I wish this to be a reminder of how carefully people and their mostly uninfoirmed opinions are to be taken on these anonymous forums...

Pampal, 2000 years ago Oxford and Harvard did not exist, Al-Azhar did not exist and Cairo (the Egyptian city where Al-Azhar is) did not exist.

The "premier places of learning", as you say, where the damned Roman schools 'cause it was all there was, and the part of Egypt where Al-Azhar will be built 1000 years later was yet another Roman province.

Cairo was built around the year 639 as an Arab encampment using a pre-existing Roman fort (yes, always those damned Romans!) and Al-Azhar "university" was built around the year 988 as an annex of the Al-Azhar mosque (built by a Sicilian warlord). The title of the oldest "university" does not refer to an Arab "invention" of the concept of university but the fact that Al-Azhar is the oldest or the second oldest (after the university of Al Karaouine in Fez, Morocco) one amongst those in operation today. They both started as Madrasahs (schools of Islamic theology) and that explains it all...

Still today, Al-Azhar does not admit students who are not practicing Islam. And that's how they embody the true international, bondless and boarderless spirit of the higher teaching which is the essence of the idea of university...

Now, to clear this garbage about who and when "started a tradition that is the foundation of inquiry of most of the leading systems of higher learning" the very idea and concept and the very definition of university come from THE ROMANS, university is none other than the short for the Roman schools universitas magistrorum et scholarium and they developed and formalized an even earlier Greek concept of "communities of students and masters".

Now, about the FORMAL institutions of universities as we know them today, they developed in Europe around the 1100-1200 (so 100-200 years later than Al-Azhar if we want to consider Madrasahs as proper universities but then again under the same definition we would have had them MUCH earlier than Al-Azhar...).

In Italy (by Western standards and definition of "University", the oldest in the world is the "Alma mater studiorum", the Bologna University, 1088), France, Germany, England, Scotland, Poland and Bohemia.

In academic circles there were no language barriers because the language of the scholars was still the Latin and the lessons were entirely in Latin (in Italy, France, Germany, England, Scotland, Poland and Bohemia).

So each university developed its own specialization (for example, Bologna in Jurisprudence, Salerno -in Italy- in Medicine, Paris in Theology and Philosophy, Montpellier in Medicine, Oxford in Sperimental Sciences etc).

If we were to consider Madrasahs-like istitutions of higher teachings as proper contemporary universities we in Europe had those hundreds of years before Al-Azhar and they were the medieval universities of the Roman Catholic Church, the cathedral schools and the Studia Generali and they actually put the accent on the normal studies instead of the religious ones much more than in the Madrasahs and proof of this is that most of them transformed themselves in "normal" and ordinary universities (just think of the University of Paris, once a cathedral school) while once Madrasahs like Al-Azhar are today open only to Muslims...

I am stopping here, pampal, since you are as ignorant about universities as you are about anything else you have written about in your post and I don't wont to waste any more of my precious time educating someone who does not even bother to google Al-Azhar before so boldly proclaiming that "2000 years ago Oxford and Harvard did not exist, so it was the premier place of learning at it's inception and for the next millenia"......

Pampal, we have had, have today and will have in the future much to learn from other cultures but they have had, have today and will have MUCH MUCH more to learn from us...

History and the contemporary world show us this, take off the PC rose colored glasses, open your eyes and you will (maybe) see it.

JR Texas:

[pampal]

I accept your apologies BAF, although you are wrong and cannot admit it.

I will let it go at that.

[bkkandrew]

Look at that. I fly to UK, leave the thread and now we are talking Romans and Arabs, Thaigoon holidaying and cyberattack by PM. Can't I leave you to play nicely for a moment?!?

Edited April 29, 2007 by bkkandrew

[shochu]

BAF,

I thought you weren't posting again?

Anyways,

Tell me how you went off on such a tangent with this sentence with the highlighted part clearly stating the obvious?

First, most of the world's most important universities such as Oxford and Harvard still follow the traditions started at Al-Azhar.

If you look at a satelite map of europe and include the nordic countries which are almost equal to western europe and include eastern europe - and calculate the roman empire based on archaeological evidence as opposed to an artistic rendering of a map - then I think you will find that the roman empire was about equivalent to about half of modern day europe.

FURGIE,

Ahhh shochu, you always seemed very good at running to the internet and getting a few facts to support your cause (though when someone counters this you find a reason to disagree with their facts and change the underlying basis) – where are your facts in these examples?

Care to show me where EXACTLY so I can counter it!

Also, polio as you so happen to use as an example, which I know a little about (because there are a few doctors in my family) - was never proven to have really improved things because when one considers the improvments in living conditions, sanitation, nutrition, overall health, etc. it is really difficult to correlate the improvements with the vaccine alone. What is clear, is that the vaccine has caused many deaths and crippled many kids (yes, i remember kids in my neigborhood with their crutches - do you?) although the average person wouldn't know since it was hushed up. IN fact vaccines have been proven to be very harmful and there are many deaths and illnesses related to vaccines (like my niece). I could go on but whats the point hey Furgie??

AND LETS NOT FORGET WHERE i SAY THIS:

Funny how according to your studies - the same people also say that asians are far superior to westerners. Should we be so bold as to believe this too? I don't - but I guess you do - right?

As I have said many , many times before,

Every country has benefitted from technology transfer and will continue to do so.

Every country has the ability to prosper given the right conditions and there being no barriers.

Thailand has this ability - can someone give me a convincing argument as to why this can't happen?

Furgie - where have I not been clear in my argument - please point them out or is that asking too much

[cdnvic]

I think everyone else has moved on sochu

[shochu]

Obviously you haven't.

But thanks for telling me!